I will keep praying for tolerance as wellCapitalism said:
I fully support the billboard owner exercising their freedom and taking down whatever advertisement they want. I hope one day we all have this freedom.unfortunately I fear an atheist billboard owner would run afoul of the law if they removed a Christian billboard for being Religious. I hope one day The freedom of association will be valued for all of us rather than having some rights to freely associate or not associate elevated above others.
Atheist Billboard taken down
8,985 Views |
119 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by kurt vonnegut
Agree, much ado about nothing. Let the group have its say. IMO it just shows their misunderstanding of those whose faith has any sort of depth. Probably more people became aware of the message because of the uproar than would have taken notice of the sign without all the hubbub.UTExan said:
What a shame. Usually it is the secular/leftist bloc which engages in such censorship.
Um, do you really believe the insurance company is just going to eat that cost. The whole opt out compromise is simply a slight of hand trick.Dr. Watson said:
Contraception is important for many women beyond just the sexual component. So it's not out of line to have that covered like any other medication (it would be smart to have it covered even if the only thing it did was prevent pregnancy, but that's another discussion). The compromise offered would have completely separated the contraception aspect from the insurance provided by a religious institution. All the organization had to do was fill out a form saying they weren't going to provide contraception. That's it. But oh, the horror.
Here's a more fundamental question: should a religious objection to an action of the state relieve an individual from any obligation towards the state? If you decide your religion forbids paying taxes, should you be allowed to avoid paying taxes? If your religion forbids you from getting a medical license to provide treatment, should you be allowed to avoid getting a license? Where is the line?
EDIT: My glib reply might make it appear that the Sisters are concerned about money. They are not, it is about conscience. They simply want to provide a health care plan to their staff that does not conflict with their beliefs and they believe this isn't the case even if they do not actually have to pay for those provisions required by the mandate.
Dad-O-Lot said:Read the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act". There is already a two-step process for addressing this.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:This is the biggest BS response!Dr. Watson said:Sq16Aggie2006 said:Dr. Watson said:
As private individuals, they can hold to any belief they want. Their business is not subject to the same laws as their person. If religion is really their primary purpose in business, they should reorganize as a religious nonprofit.
What if religious clergy owns a business?
If the business is for-profit, they have to abide by the law.
This is the exact problem!
Laws being passed which require people violate their deeply-held religious beliefs. You really think a business owner should just say, "oh well, they passed a law, now I need to make a choice; either violate my religious beliefs, or shut down my business".
No, that's crap!
What if a business owner "deeply-holds" that any and all taxes and safety regulations are a violation of their religious beliefs? Should they be allowed to avoid paying taxes or follow OSHA regulations?What is the compelling government interest?Quote:Quote:
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 - Prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State (the government) from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that the government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Is there a less restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest?
If there are ANY exceptions made that do not require any action by the business owner or excepted entity, then why could that exception not be made to others?
RFRA
This doesn't address your point or my response. You're complaining about government interference in religious belief and then citing a law that attempts to define how government justifies interference in deeply-held religious belief. I'm curious about how you're philosophically drawing the line where government can interfere in religious belief and where it can't.
If the government has a compelling interest in whatever requirement that would require the individual to violate their deeply held religious belief AND the government requirement is the least restrictive means of furthering that identified compelling government interest. The burden would be on the government to prove 1) that what they are attempting to enforce furthers a compelling government interest and 2) that this enforcement is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:Read the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act". There is already a two-step process for addressing this.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:This is the biggest BS response!Dr. Watson said:Sq16Aggie2006 said:Dr. Watson said:
As private individuals, they can hold to any belief they want. Their business is not subject to the same laws as their person. If religion is really their primary purpose in business, they should reorganize as a religious nonprofit.
What if religious clergy owns a business?
If the business is for-profit, they have to abide by the law.
This is the exact problem!
Laws being passed which require people violate their deeply-held religious beliefs. You really think a business owner should just say, "oh well, they passed a law, now I need to make a choice; either violate my religious beliefs, or shut down my business".
No, that's crap!
What if a business owner "deeply-holds" that any and all taxes and safety regulations are a violation of their religious beliefs? Should they be allowed to avoid paying taxes or follow OSHA regulations?What is the compelling government interest?Quote:Quote:
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 - Prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State (the government) from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that the government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Is there a less restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest?
If there are ANY exceptions made that do not require any action by the business owner or excepted entity, then why could that exception not be made to others?
RFRA
This doesn't address your point or my response. You're complaining about government interference in religious belief and then citing a law that attempts to define how government justifies interference in deeply-held religious belief. I'm curious about how you're philosophically drawing the line where government can interfere in religious belief and where it can't.
I think it's pretty clear.
Can we not use a reasonable test? These arguments always devolve into "so owners should be made to sacrifice live chickens if the US government demands it" and "what if owners decide that every employee should drink poison because of religious beliefs"Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:Read the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act". There is already a two-step process for addressing this.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:This is the biggest BS response!Dr. Watson said:Sq16Aggie2006 said:Dr. Watson said:
As private individuals, they can hold to any belief they want. Their business is not subject to the same laws as their person. If religion is really their primary purpose in business, they should reorganize as a religious nonprofit.
What if religious clergy owns a business?
If the business is for-profit, they have to abide by the law.
This is the exact problem!
Laws being passed which require people violate their deeply-held religious beliefs. You really think a business owner should just say, "oh well, they passed a law, now I need to make a choice; either violate my religious beliefs, or shut down my business".
No, that's crap!
What if a business owner "deeply-holds" that any and all taxes and safety regulations are a violation of their religious beliefs? Should they be allowed to avoid paying taxes or follow OSHA regulations?What is the compelling government interest?Quote:Quote:
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 - Prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State (the government) from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that the government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Is there a less restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest?
If there are ANY exceptions made that do not require any action by the business owner or excepted entity, then why could that exception not be made to others?
RFRA
This doesn't address your point or my response. You're complaining about government interference in religious belief and then citing a law that attempts to define how government justifies interference in deeply-held religious belief. I'm curious about how you're philosophically drawing the line where government can interfere in religious belief and where it can't.
What is the reasonable test?
Reason? Why in the name of God should a business owner be forced to provide his employees with abortifacients and birth control?Dr. Watson said:
What is the reasonable test?
Sq16Aggie2006 said:Reason? Why in the name of God should a business owner be forced to provide his employees with abortifacients and birth control?Dr. Watson said:
What is the reasonable test?
That's not an answer to my question.
The government should have to prove:
a) compelling government interest
and
b) least restrictive means
The individual should NOT have prove anything.
a) compelling government interest
and
b) least restrictive means
The individual should NOT have prove anything.
Dad-O-Lot said:
The government should have to prove:
a) compelling government interest
and
b) least restrictive means
The individual should NOT have prove anything.
Ok. The government has a compelling interest (by its own definition) in expanding health care coverage and providing women with equal access to medicine as men. Birth control is very important to many women since they bear the burden of any pregnancy.
Having the insurance company provide coverage independent of the employer is not restrictive.
The individual does need to establish why they feel this way and the consequences of their violating this belief.
They have already proven that eitherDr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:
The government should have to prove:
a) compelling government interest
and
b) least restrictive means
The individual should NOT have prove anything.
Ok. The government has a compelling interest (by its own definition) in expanding health care coverage and providing women with equal access to medicine as men. Birth control is very important to many women since they bear the burden of any pregnancy.
Having the insurance company provide coverage independent of the employer is not restrictive.
The individual does need to establish why they feel this way and the consequences of their violating this belief.
a) the compelling interest is not universal or
b) that there are less restrictive means
because there are some organizations which are completely exempted from the mandate. No need to do anything at all.
Private organizations have long been exempted from a lot of things. That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reasons for holding different organizations to different standards.
Oh, and where does it say the compelling interest must be universal?
Oh, and where does it say the compelling interest must be universal?
Dad-O-Lot said:
Please tell me where I, a practicing Catholic, can buy a health insurance policy that does not subsidize contraception? I am forced, by law, to subsidize contraception; including abortion-inducing drugs. If I opt out, I am breaking the law.
At least the money you use to buy that policy will say "In God We Trust."
While I wouldn't characterize the OP link as being some great discrimination against atheists, many of the counter points seem to be "but, but, but - look at how we are oppressed too" . . . as though that would justify discrimination toward anyone else.
A sign owner shouldn't be forced to put up an atheist sign, but those who complained are a sad and pathetic lot who mean to censor someone because they have a different point of view. . . some real first world BS here. . .
equal protection...Dr. Watson said:
Oh, and where does it say the compelling interest must be universal?
Dad-O-Lot said:That is cooperation. There should be NO ACTION required by the organization. NONE!Dr. Watson said:
The compromise offered would have completely separated the contraception aspect from the insurance provided by a religious institution. All the organization had to do was fill out a form saying they weren't going to provide contraception. That's it. But oh, the horror.
I should not have to tell anyone that I am Catholic and therefore shouldn't have to do _____.
I should just be able to live my life, make my decisions and not have to justify them to anyone.
There is no compelling reason for the state to require anyone to help anyone else get contraception.
Dr. Watson said:
Could someone please remind me how it's Christians who are persecuted in this country?
Atheists are persecuted because people didn't want to do business at a place with a billboard they didn't like?
Lol!
7thGenTexan said:Dr. Watson said:
Could someone please remind me how it's Christians who are persecuted in this country?
Atheists are persecuted because people didn't want to do business at a place with a billboard they didn't like?
Lol!
My point was sarcasm. I don't consider that persecution, but it is a sign of the remaining power of religious orthodoxy in this country. The people who called in and threatened a boycott seem like the sort who say atheists shouldn't complain when they get singled out, but say "Happy Holidays" in December and it's a sign of the end times.
Dad-O-Lot said:equal protection...Dr. Watson said:
Oh, and where does it say the compelling interest must be universal?
Equal protection does not mean men and women can only be covered for the exact same things.
But it does mean you can't give a religious exemption to one person that you won't give to another.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:equal protection...Dr. Watson said:
Oh, and where does it say the compelling interest must be universal?
Equal protection does not mean men and women can only be covered for the exact same things.
Dr. Watson said:7thGenTexan said:Dr. Watson said:
Could someone please remind me how it's Christians who are persecuted in this country?
Atheists are persecuted because people didn't want to do business at a place with a billboard they didn't like?
Lol!
My point was sarcasm. I don't consider that persecution, but it is a sign of the remaining power of religious orthodoxy in this country. The people who called in and threatened a boycott seem like the sort who say atheists shouldn't complain when they get singled out, but say "Happy Holidays" in December and it's a sign of the end times.
I got your point. It's a hackneyed method of mocking Christian to play the perceived persecution card. Every religious forum on the Net has it ad nauseam.
But there has indeed been a war against Christian culture. Our minds have been poisoned with many lies.
Dad-O-Lot said:But it does mean you can't give a religious exemption to one person that you won't give to another.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:equal protection...Dr. Watson said:
Oh, and where does it say the compelling interest must be universal?
Equal protection does not mean men and women can only be covered for the exact same things.
What for-profit enterprise was given an exception not given to others?
ExxonMobil, Visa, Chevron, Pepsico, and even some US Military Plans do not include contraceptive coverage.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:But it does mean you can't give a religious exemption to one person that you won't give to another.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:equal protection...Dr. Watson said:
Oh, and where does it say the compelling interest must be universal?
Equal protection does not mean men and women can only be covered for the exact same things.
What for-profit enterprise was given an exception not given to others?
Dad-O-Lot said:ExxonMobil, Visa, Chevron, Pepsico, and even some US Military Plans do not include contraceptive coverage.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:But it does mean you can't give a religious exemption to one person that you won't give to another.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:equal protection...Dr. Watson said:
Oh, and where does it say the compelling interest must be universal?
Equal protection does not mean men and women can only be covered for the exact same things.
What for-profit enterprise was given an exception not given to others?
Do you understand the concept of "grandfathering"?
doesn't matter. If it is not so compelling that you can allow "grandfathering", then there is not compelling enough to force people to go against their strongly held religious beliefs. -- further, why can't the Little Sisters of the Poor "grandfather" the policies they had in place prior to the mandate?Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:ExxonMobil, Visa, Chevron, Pepsico, and even some US Military Plans do not include contraceptive coverage.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:But it does mean you can't give a religious exemption to one person that you won't give to another.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:equal protection...Dr. Watson said:
Oh, and where does it say the compelling interest must be universal?
Equal protection does not mean men and women can only be covered for the exact same things.
What for-profit enterprise was given an exception not given to others?
Do you understand the concept of "grandfathering"?
Quote:
But there has indeed been a war against Christian culture. Our minds have been poisoned with many lies.
There is a difference between a culture that is actively warring against Christianity and a culture that is simply moving away from Christian values. I think the shift we see in society's values are a combination of the two, but I think many Christians are unwilling to accept the distinction or to otherwise be able to see any shift from their values as anything other than an attack on their values.
I support gay marriage. . . because it is compatible with my values, and not out of spite and hatred of Christians.
Dad-O-Lot said:doesn't matter. If it is not so compelling that you can allow "grandfathering", then there is not compelling enough to force people to go against their strongly held religious beliefs. -- further, why can't the Little Sisters of the Poor "grandfather" the policies they had in place prior to the mandate?Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:ExxonMobil, Visa, Chevron, Pepsico, and even some US Military Plans do not include contraceptive coverage.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:But it does mean you can't give a religious exemption to one person that you won't give to another.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:equal protection...Dr. Watson said:
Oh, and where does it say the compelling interest must be universal?
Equal protection does not mean men and women can only be covered for the exact same things.
What for-profit enterprise was given an exception not given to others?
Do you understand the concept of "grandfathering"?
You're struggling now to hold on to your argument. Grandfathering is often used to allow for a transition to take place. In fact, the stronger challenge to the rules wouldn't come from the Church, but from women's groups, since the courts have held since the 70s that conraception for women should be protected under the law.
That's fine; however, from a Christian standpoint; we'd say that one of the biggest victories in the "war" is the thought process that has more and more feeling the same way; which is decidedly against Christian principles.kurt vonnegut said:Quote:
But there has indeed been a war against Christian culture. Our minds have been poisoned with many lies.
There is a difference between a culture that is actively warring against Christianity and a culture that is simply moving away from Christian values. I think the shift we see in society's values are a combination of the two, but I think many Christians are unwilling to accept the distinction or to otherwise be able to see any shift from their values as anything other than an attack on their values.
I support gay marriage. . . because it is compatible with my values, and not out of spite and hatred of Christians.
Not struggling at all -- over 100 million Americans are NOT covered by a plan that covers contraception. So why is it so damned important that a few dozen (at most) employees of a Catholic religious order MUST be provided such a plan? It's not just grandfathered plans.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:doesn't matter. If it is not so compelling that you can allow "grandfathering", then there is not compelling enough to force people to go against their strongly held religious beliefs. -- further, why can't the Little Sisters of the Poor "grandfather" the policies they had in place prior to the mandate?Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:ExxonMobil, Visa, Chevron, Pepsico, and even some US Military Plans do not include contraceptive coverage.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:But it does mean you can't give a religious exemption to one person that you won't give to another.Dr. Watson said:Dad-O-Lot said:equal protection...Dr. Watson said:
Oh, and where does it say the compelling interest must be universal?
Equal protection does not mean men and women can only be covered for the exact same things.
What for-profit enterprise was given an exception not given to others?
Do you understand the concept of "grandfathering"?
You're struggling now to hold on to your argument. Grandfathering is often used to allow for a transition to take place. In fact, the stronger challenge to the rules wouldn't come from the Church, but from women's groups, since the courts have held since the 70s that conraception for women should be protected under the law.
If the "compelling state interest" was so important, then those 100 million people would somehow need to be provided this same coverage.
Who is exempt from HHS Mandate?
Sq16Aggie2006 said:That's fine; however, from a Christian standpoint; we'd say that one of the biggest victories in the "war" is the thought process that has more and more feeling the same way; which is decidedlykurt vonnegut said:Quote:
But there has indeed been a war against Christian culture. Our minds have been poisoned with many lies.
There is a difference between a culture that is actively warring against Christianity and a culture that is simply moving away from Christian values. I think the shift we see in society's values are a combination of the two, but I think many Christians are unwilling to accept the distinction or to otherwise be able to see any shift from their values as anything other than an attack on their values.
I support gay marriage. . . because it is compatible with my values, and not out of spite and hatred of Christians.againstin contrast with Christian principles.
fify.
Again, I think there is folly in assuming that a belief that is non-Christian is inherently anti-Christian. It sounds like a very 'You are with us or against us" position.
BusterAg
Joined:
Jul 21, 2000
Posts:
21,196
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can you provide some examples, please? I think maybe you are going a bit too far here.Capitalism said:
I fully support the billboard owner exercising their freedom and taking down whatever advertisement they want. I hope one day we all have this freedom.unfortunately I fear an atheist billboard owner would run afoul of the law if they removed a Christian billboard for being Religious. I hope one day The freedom of association will be valued for all of us rather than having some rights to freely associate or not associate elevated above others.
I think that homosexuality is immoral, and I don't think that we should be teaching our children that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle that should be celebrated. I think that a strong defense of the nuclear family is important, and leads to better outcomes for children. In this culture, it is kind of rude to hold that opinion.Quote:
Again, I think there is folly in assuming that a belief that is non-Christian is inherently anti-Christian. It sounds like a very 'You are with us or against us" position.
Frankly, the culture judges me with disgust as a bigot, not a rational person who has a defensible alternative viewpoint.
I would say that this leans much more into the anti-Christian camp.
It marks you as a person who wishes to impose your personal morality on other individuals and hold them as lesser than you. That's not anti-Christian unless you define your faith by opposition to others living their lives.
Aggball2010
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
4
RafterAg223
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
3
Harry Stone
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
3
missinAggieland
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
2
AgEngr12
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
2
brewcrewag
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
2
country
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
2
Kansas Kid
Georgia scores 9 runs on the top ranked team in the country in first inning
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
2
GT_Aggie2015
You guys ever notice how many baseball players wear necklaces?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
2